Many pundits have presented the case that society needs to reward the achiever. It is argued that the most talented should
attain positions of authority, based upon their superior ability. The end result is the formation of a power structure of
Elite's; making the decisions, formulating policies and directing the organizations that carry out the plan. It is most difficult
to quarrel with the notion that talent is not distributed equally, but it becomes a giant leap to conclude that the very attribute
of aptitude, is the sole criteria that justifies positions of authority.

Democracy has failed miserably to ensure
a Just society, but so has rule by a cadre of whiz kids. The problem with ALL attempts to design and implement social systems
through central planning is that it ignores the dynamics of the market place of individual needs, aspirations and fears. Neither
Government nor NGO Institutions have the ability to mold humanity to their conception of paradise. Only the accumulative interaction
of countless individual dreams and nightmares, can set the course on this 'ship of fools'. Mankind, by the nature of its common
humanity, is unable to achieve perfection. Those who seek and scheme to be the architects of paragon, and those who lust and
plot to be the regents of dominance, possess the same flaws.

'Meritocracy' attempts to establish a standard by which
motivated crusaders can achieve success. Well, that's fine and commendable if we could all agree upon the criteria for defining
achievement. But society has such a varied view of significance in collective accomplishment, that consensus is virtually
impossible.

In addition to this problem, the methods used to demonstrate and constitute access to the reins of power,
must be established. However, this seemingly rational approach to test the merits of the prospective leader defy our Nature,
when a system of empirical formulas are solely used. The parameters for merit must include the moral basis for behavior. But
the proponents of 'Meritocracy' accept situations ethics as a substitute for principle. Their faith is founded in the belief
that Man is capable of reaching an ideal, that THEY define for all of Mankind. Their rational is simple, who is more qualified
to delineate the proper social order, than the members of the 'Meritocracy'?

This begs the real issue, for the conflict
which is inevitable from such reasoning has a dire record, when sincerely reviewed. Even if one disagrees with the conclusion
that the chronicle of controlled conduct is replete with corruption and depravity; one can hardly concur that it has been
well managed. If those of influence, are really the best and brightest, why are they so unsuccessful in the implementation
of their vision?

Again, we need not look very far for the answer. An examination of HOW one becomes part of the 'Meritocracy',
reveals its ultimate failing. Advancement in the ranks of most organizations requires a conformity, to the culture, of that
particular gang of achievers. Bureaucracies invariably place a premium on compliance and congruity to established policy,
practice and puissance. Independent initiative is suspect. And individual action is soundly condemned. To the 'Meritocracy',
conformity is a virtue and autonomy is a vice. Isn't it obvious that the very entree into the 'Meritocracy' requires that
one proves their superiority by way of accepting the tenants of the enlightened?

But reality is much different from
the myth. The practice of advancement dictates that 'Mediocrity' is the prime and indispensable ingredient, to ensure acceptance.
With acceptance comes admittance to the clique. Yes, 'Meritocracy is the clan of 'Mediocrity', and is founded upon the principle
of uniformity.

When Ayn Rand argues her 'Objectivism' as an alternative moral code for a world that has doubts in
a Creator, she attempts to establish the truth that moral conduct is the ultimate standard for individual achievement. The
morality of the individual pursuit of happiness, is achieved and justified by the very act of independent accomplishment.
But the 'Meritocrat' is opposed to her philosophy because it removes the 'Mediocre' foundation upon which their power rest.
Why is it that so often these protectors of the inferior are Harvard graduates? Might, we not be better served with Crimson
drop outs?

The core question rests upon the character of achievement. Is advancement conceived in individual inspiration
or does it require the collective allusions of mediocre toadies? Absence of moral authority leaves man equipped to ravage
his fellow neighbor; in the name of ever noble objectives, that can be reduced through the accumulated delusions of the geniuses
of amorality.

Irrational behavior becomes the norm when, the know it all, is allowed to rise to positions of influence.
Those who claim to be the 'cream of the crop' are buffoons in the circus of the absurd. If you still doubt that this cannot
be true, point out the last independent mind of moral courage, to achieve a position of authority in this gulag of unanimity?
No Solzhenitsyn comes to mind!

The solution will not be reached through rational systems, devised by Man. Rand said
her guiding inspiration came from a forgotten sage, who said: "I will not die, the world will end". Too many of
the 'Meritocracy' similarly accept this falsehood that the world will cease without their wisdom. They are unwilling to acknowledge
that they are a mere cog in the plan of an 'Existential' reality. Unless one is ready to humble themselves to accept revealed
authority, all the pseudo intellectualism from the 'precocity of phantasm', will be for naught. Haven't we all suffered enough
under the normality of the chaotic reign of the 'Meritocracy'? Or are you content to be part of the 'Mediocrity'?